Monday, July 02, 2012

My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.

Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call. However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Conception, gestation, and birth are natural, bodily processes which people want to manage. People want to manage them, in great part, because becoming pregnant is a very serious medical condition, which carries significant risks to physical and mental health.

And they're free to contract with willing providers of these contraception management services. Just because I desire something doesn't give me a right to demand a provider of those services.

This is an entirely separate question. David denied that contraception was health care at all.

Am I right in taking from your response that you agree with me that contraception is health care? And that you disagree with David? I don't really want to have another argument about what sorts of regulations of health insurance are violations of rights or productive of human flourishing. All I was interested in here was the claim that contraception is health care.

All I was arguing against was David's statement, "contraception isn't health care."

EDIT: Yes, it's true that we disagree about the regulation of industry. I wasn't having that argument, however, and I don't really feel like having it. I prefer to stick with the question of whether contraception is health care, since it was brought up specifically.

Just because I desire something doesn't give me a right to demand a provider of those services. If Bob's Health Care only wants to offer coverage for lupus, skydiving accidents, and hilarious things accidentally ending up in their rectum through a serious of improbable, wacky events, that's Bob's business. I can't go into Five Guys and demand a pizza.

You're getting more and more incoherent the more you write.

First of all, you certainly do have "a right to demand a provider" for services. Whether or not such a provider steps up to provide it is, of course, a different issue. But you can demand all you want. You certainly can, for instance, demand a pizza at Five Guys, regardless of whether or not you'll actually get one.

Second of all, I'm not sure what your "Bob's Health Care" example is trying to prove. The power of Congress to regulate actual interstate commerce is not seriously questioned by anyone, and certainly maintaining minimal industry standards falls within the bounds of acceptable regulation.

First of all, you certainly do have "a right to demand a provider" for services. Whether or not such a provider steps up to provide it is, of course, a different issue. But you can demand all you want. You certainly can, for instance, demand a pizza at Five Guys, regardless of whether or not you'll actually get one.

True. I don't have the right to force them to provide pizza. But I only have the right to demand the pizza on their premises until they revoke the privilege of allowing me into their storefront.

The power of Congress to regulate actual interstate commerce is not seriously questioned by anyone, and certainly maintaining minimal industry standards falls within the bounds of acceptable regulation.

I don't question the power. I question the right. I don't believe Congress has any more right to regulate financial agreements between two consenting parties than it does sexual ones. The government is extremely powerful and thanks to the brothers-in-arms, statists of the right and left, it gets more powerful and less transparent every day.

You'd be wrong. Or more accurately, you'd be right, but only within your personal jurisdiction and among others who recognize that right as well. You have a right to seek birth control coverage from other consenting parties or to provide your own. Your right to birth control stops at another person's wallet, the same way a person's right to their fist stops at the other guy's face. Of for Sammy, your right to grown cotton stops at another man's toil.

I don't question the power. I question the right. I don't believe Congress has any more right to regulate financial agreements between two consenting parties than it does sexual ones.

Well, again with your abstract conception of "rights". The very basic fact of the matter, though, is that the Constitution explicitly gives the government the power to regulate financial transactions and not sexual ones. Hence their legal right is quite clear indeed.

So, you know ... scoreboard, I guess. If you want to overturn the US Constitution, have a go at it for all I care. Some of it I don't like much, either. But don't feign ignorance about where these "rights" come from, because you know the answer full well.

You'd be wrong. Or more accurately, you'd be right, but only within your personal jurisdiction and among others who recognize that right as well. You have a right to seek birth control coverage from other consenting parties or to provide your own. Your right to birth control stops at another person's wallet, the same way a person's right to their fist stops at the other guy's face. Of for Sammy, your right to grown cotton stops at another man's toil.

You'd be wrong. Or more accurately, you'd be right, but only within your personal jurisdiction and among others who recognize that right as well. You have a right to seek birth control coverage from other consenting parties or to provide your own. Your right to birth control stops at another person's wallet, the same way a person's right to their fist stops at the other guy's face. Of for Sammy, your right to grown cotton stops at another man's toil.

This is entirely religious thinking cloaked in liberal vocabulary. You reject even the need to articulate why one thing is a right and one isn't, and you repeat your dogma without offering a justification.

You'd be wrong. Or more accurately, you'd be right, but only within your personal jurisdiction and among others who recognize that right as well. You have a right to seek birth control coverage from other consenting parties or to provide your own. Your right to birth control stops at another person's wallet, the same way a person's right to their fist stops at the other guy's face.

Not to jump back into the great slavery debate... but then how does this differ in theory from the slavery argument? If the government had been able to peaceably rid the south of the institution, should the slaveholders have been compensated? I suppose you can take the easy way out and point out that there was another, not exactly disinterested party in play in that particular scenario... but if rights are inherent and everything else just trappings, what if any form of compensation should have been available to those who had sunk large sums of money into the legal (setting aside rights and morality) institution?

Well, again with your abstract conception of "rights". The very basic fact of the matter, though, is that the Constitution explicitly gives the government the power to regulate financial transactions and not sexual ones. Hence their legal right is quite clear indeed.

As DMN says, I'm not a Constitutional fetishist. The Constitution is great in some places, less so in others. I'd be willing to be perfectly satisfied with what the Constitution lays out, provided progressives agreed to not find secret sentences in the magical, unicorn invisible ink that only they can see. As I said, if we're talking about first principles, I have clear first principles. If we're talking practical, "what would you actually do" type stuff, then I'm probably be more along the lines of a Tim Kaine or Paul Tsongas. I've never voted for a Republican for president and on the Washington level and John Kasich is the first Republican I voted for a significant office since Bob Ehrlich in 2002.

IOW, Zonk, you'd be wrong because Dan says so.

On my property and my person, that's exactly true. If Zonk declares that he feels there's no right to not vote for Obama, he can justifiably use my recognition of the right he believes to exist as a prerequisite for entering his personal property or engaging with him. That's his right.

This is entirely religious thinking cloaked in liberal vocabulary. You reject even the need to articulate why one thing is a right and one isn't, and you repeat your dogma without offering a justification.

You'd be wrong. Or more accurately, you'd be right, but only within your personal jurisdiction and among others who recognize that right as well. You have a right to seek birth control coverage from other consenting parties or to provide your own. Your right to birth control stops at another person's wallet, the same way a person's right to their fist stops at the other guy's face. Of for Sammy, your right to cotton stops at another man's toil.

It is amazing that you guys continually venerate the freedom of contract as the ultimate expression of human autonomy, but then refuse to recognize the myriad of factors that impinge on the autonomy of the participants in that contract. Your whole idea of moral legitimacy is derived from a legal fiction, but you're giving it some sort of metaphysical status. It's a trick. If you want to think morally, then you have to recognize all of the other ways that the people entering into an agreement are compromised in their agency, whether by a governmental or nongovernmental entity, when they enter into a contract, and all of those influence our judgement about the moral status of that contract. If you want be a legalist, continue to venerate the "free" contract. But then you lose your moral high ground, and you have to stop ######## about how every minor regulation is the death of freedom-- we are "always already subjects" and all that. You don't get to have it both ways.

Dan can answer that easily under his theology metaphysics of right. The slaveowners were acting in violation of the metaphysical rights of the slaves, and so they had no right to the labor of the enslaved or to compensation for freeing the slaves.

If the government had been able to peaceably rid the south of the institution, should the slaveholders have been compensated? I suppose you can take the easy way out and point out that there was another, not exactly disinterested party in play in that particular scenario... but if rights are inherent and everything else just trappings, what if any form of compensation should have been available to those who had sunk large sums of money into the legal (setting aside rights and morality) institution?

They never owned the slaves in the first place, any money they lost was simply money they lost in furthering a crime, no different than buying a sex slave from Russia or paying someone to kill someone. I would have been far less kind to former slaveowners in Reconstruction than the northern states actually were. Slaveowning is one of the reasons I'm not a Founding Father drooler - they furthered a subset of personal freedom, but their frequent ownership of slaves makes them less-than-heroes.

Nor am I, as I said. But that doesn't change the fact that the "right" of the government to regulate interstate commerce is clearly defined. I think it's stupid that we have two houses of Congress, and that one systematically overrepresents unpopulated rural areas, but I would sound like an idiot if I said that Congress has no "right" to be bicameral.

They never owned the slaves in the first place, any money they lost was simply money they lost in furthering a crime, no different than buying a sex slave from Russia or paying someone to kill someone.

Both of which are actual legal crimes, unlike owning slaves in the Southern US before the Civil War.

Speaking of slavery, I wonder what our local libertarians think about the idea that the descendents of slaves should be able to sue the descendents of former slaveowners to compensate for the compounded value of their stolen property, i.e. their labor and freedom.

Of course the argument against that is that "the sins of one's fathers shouldn't be", etc.

Fair enough, but then what about when both the former slaves and the slaveowners** were still alive? By what moral right should a person who had been forcibly conscripted to work virtually all of his life for nothing but food and an occasional pat on the head, NOT be allowed to be paid for all that work, and at a very high rate at that? For people who talk about "stolen property", it's hard to think of a much more egregious example.

Note, BTW, that I'm talking about the justification for private lawsuits between principal parties, not some government-mandated and broad-based "reparations" law that would tax the descendents of late 19th and 20th century immigrants to pay off Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey. Just stick to the basics of law and morality as it should apply to those who had done direct injury to specific classes of people.

**and perhaps their children and grandchildren who were directly affected by slavery's aftermath

Nor am I, as I said. But that doesn't change the fact that the "right" of the government to regulate interstate commerce is clearly defined.

No, the *power* of the government to regulate interstate commerce is clearly defined. Not the right.

Both of which are actual legal crimes, unlike owning slaves in the Southern US before the Civil War.

The US government ignoring kidnapping and murder, horrific rights violations committed by anyone who owned a slave, doesn't reflect well on those that theorize that rights are simply what the guys with the big guns give you.

And as a followup question to #1120, why shouldn't the black citizens of the states with public Jim Crow school systems have been compensated by the state for the loss of income that resulted from having been offered only a Jim Crow education? Politically this was and will ever be a non-starter, but if any class of people has a right to complain about "stolen property", it's not the ones who've been cited as victims of the government on this thread.

Speaking of slavery, I wonder what our local libertarians think about the idea that the descendents of slaves should be able to sue the descendents of former slaveowners to compensate for the compounded value of their stolen property, i.e. their labor and freedom.

The statute of limitations for personal damages is pretty far gone, though for practical considerations, we could possibly consider an exception given the government's roadblocks to suing for personal damages (ideally, pretty much anyone who owned a slave should have been bankrupt, penniless, and in jail during reconstruction, with the proceeds going to their slaves). It would be tricky to define the estate of the slaveowner at this point, but if someone can find a solid paper trail at this point to make an old claim on a slaveholder's estate (rather than some general reparations request that punishes the innocent as you outline), I'd certainly be willing to entertain the notion.

No, the *power* of the government to regulate interstate commerce is clearly defined. Not the right.

A democratically elected government has the rights its people give it. That's the point of self-rule.

You can stretch the word "right" for all its worth, but all you're doing is dressing up your personal preferences in language that allow you to triumphantly thump your chest over how righteous you are (see also, "first principles", which in your case is merely a synonym for "personal preferences").

And as a followup question to #1120, why shouldn't the black citizens of the states with public Jim Crow school systems have been compensated by the state for the loss of income that resulted from having been offered only a Jim Crow education?

That's a tougher one, because the state's revenues are generally from taxpayers. I think it would be more practical to seek damages from the estates of those that individually enforced Jim Crow laws, for example, a cop that chased a black guy off a white water fountain.

A democratically elected government has the rights its people give it. That's the point of self-rule.

I didn't give them any such thing. Two wolves voting with the sheep on what to have for dinner is not self-rule.

You can stretch the word "right" for all its worth, but all you're doing is dressing up your personal preferences in language that allow you to triumphantly thump your chest over how righteous you are (see also, "first principles", which in your case is merely a synonym for "personal preferences").

You can have your own wacky conception of rights -- over your personal jurisdiction. You can give away your personal rights to whoever you want. If you voluntarily wish to grant a Thai gangster the right to force you into a life of homoerotic bondage, I may seek to dissuade you, but it's your right.

They never owned the slaves in the first place, any money they lost was simply money they lost in furthering a crime, no different than buying a sex slave from Russia or paying someone to kill someone. I would have been far less kind to former slaveowners in Reconstruction than the northern states actually were. Slaveowning is one of the reasons I'm not a Founding Father drooler - they furthered a subset of personal freedom, but their frequent ownership of slaves makes them less-than-heroes.

That they were human ought to surprise no one -- Franklin himself, doddering and old, summed it up best:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

If I'm in awe of what they did, despite their significant personal and moral failings, I think it's precisely for the reasons Franklin outlines above...

I can certainly agree that George Washington was generally a tactical disaster as a general, that he was something of a dandy, that he was far from one of the founder's great thinkers, and that he was also a slaveholder -- but I can still be in awe of him first resigning his commission of the Continental Army (when it would have gladly made him dictator if he had asked it), then stepping aside after his two terms.

I can appreciate Jefferson's radicalism while accepting that he had an awfully tough time living up to his own lofty theory.

I can respect Adams' - probably the most progressive in actions of the founders - while also accepting that he was a bit insufferable and wholly in love with trappings and institutions.

I can accept Franklin as a consummate con man and Barnum-esque self-promoter, but marvel at his ability to think two steps ahead and find compromise.

You can stretch the word "right" for all its worth, but all you're doing is dressing up your personal preferences

Of course. Isn't that what this all is? What we each think are "rights" is just our personal preferences.

But there is a difference. One side states defined rights from the outset, and derives laws and the way government should work from them. The other side says, let's give the government the power to bring about whatever outcomes we subjectively like at a particular time and place, and we'll call those things rights.

One isn't better than the other. But the former is certainly more principled.

Don't get me wrong, they did a lot of good, I meant in the sense that you see some conservatives yell FOUNDING FATHERS~! to everything.

OK, well - I guess on that note I'd agree... and frankly, I've always thought that if we could reanimate them all, the founders themselves would agree, too. In plenty of their own words, they knew they were making grave errors, they knew they often fell short of their own lofty ideals, and they knew the job they started was horrifically unfinished.

But there is a difference. One side states defined rights from the outset, and derives laws and the way government should work from them. The other side says, let's give the government the power to bring about whatever outcomes we subjectively like at a particular time and place, and we'll call those things rights.

1) There are liberals who believe that you should work from a framework of effectively a priori rights, but disagree with the tightly limited libertarian theory of right. You can see the UN Declaration of Human Rights for a vision of liberal human rights which have been taken by many as effectively a priori. It is not only libertarians who believe in rights in this fashion, and this metaphysical rights discourse can support a wide range of theories of rights.

2) The idea, for those who are skeptical of the metaphysical claims, is not that rights come into being only through governmental power. Rather, rights are developed through the complex processes of cultural production, through discourse and argument, textual interpretation, art, conversation, everyday practice, through the writing of laws and the education of people, through pop-cultural forms, and so on. They have no being in themselves until they are put into practice in actual human life. In practice, these rights are far more useful when they gain the power of the state behind them, but they don't exist only through state action.

Speaking of slavery, I wonder what our local libertarians think about the idea that the descendents of slaves should be able to sue the descendents of former slaveowners to compensate for the compounded value of their stolen property, i.e. their labor and freedom.

The statute of limitations for personal damages is pretty far gone, though for practical considerations, we could possibly consider an exception given the government's roadblocks to suing for personal damages (ideally, pretty much anyone who owned a slave should have been bankrupt, penniless, and in jail during reconstruction, with the proceeds going to their slaves). It would be tricky to define the estate of the slaveowner at this point, but if someone can find a solid paper trail at this point to make an old claim on a slaveholder's estate (rather than some general reparations request that punishes the innocent as you outline), I'd certainly be willing to entertain the notion.

Charles Sumner Szymborski!

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And if nothing else, it would make for a satisfying sequel to Gone With The Wind.

1) There are liberals who believe that you should work from a framework of effectively a priori rights, but disagree with the tightly limited libertarian theory of right. You can see the UN Declaration of Human Rights for a vision of liberal human rights which have been taken by many as effectively a priori. It is not only libertarians who believe in rights in this fashion, and this metaphysical rights discourse can support a wide range of theories of rights.

2) The idea, for those who are skeptical of the metaphysical claims, is not that rights come into being only through governmental power. Rather, rights are developed through the complex processes of cultural production, through discourse and argument, textual interpretation, art, conversation, everyday practice, through the writing of laws and the education of people, through pop-cultural forms, and so on. They have no being in themselves until they are put into practice in actual human life. In practice, these rights are far more useful when they gain the power of the state behind them, but they don't exist only through state action.

These are good points. I'll retract my implication that people define rights only from what powers they've granted government. My main criticism is the mindset that government is the best or even proper vehicle for realizing any and all outcomes we subjectively want.

I'll retract my implication that people define rights only from what powers they've granted government. My main criticism is the mindset that government is the best or even proper vehicle for realizing any and all outcomes we subjectively want.

The key words there are "any and all". Few liberals I know would even remotely subscribe to that idea, in spite of the rhetoric we've seen here about us "freedom haters".

I see government as more of a crude bulwark than a shiny panacea - and I likewise see concerted attempts at making it a shiny panacea as fraught with peril at best, downright dangerous at worst. Again - that's why I revere the founding fathers so much -- I think they very much came to understand the same.

One of the frustrations of libertarians on this (or I guess I'll just speak for myself) is that we are told that it's not a wealth redistribution, and yet everything under the sun is wrapped into health care, including - as we've seen in this thread - gambling addiction and contraception.

This would be a lot more palatable if we could pare down the list of inclusions and just cover people for what the ACA's proponents say is their main goal: insurance against injury or serious illness. (Or whatever else I'm missing that's very important.) Instead, we have counseling wrapped into this, we have birth control, we have to cover copays, we have to cover basically all kinds of !@#$ around the peripheral.

The ACA's proponents keep telling us that the main goal here is to avoid a family suffering bankruptcy or not being able to avail themselves of treatments for injuries and serious medical conditions. Well, copays don't make a family go bankrupt, and neither does purchasing ####### condoms or birth control pills. There is an aura of deception here that is unmistakable - as evidenced by the fact that the Act's proponents don't really want to seem to own what they are doing.

One of the frustrations of libertarians on this (or I guess I'll just speak for myself) is that we are told that it's not a wealth redistribution, and yet everything under the sun is wrapped into health care, including - as we've seen in this thread - gambling addiction and contraception.

This would be a lot more palatable if we could pare down the list of inclusions and just cover people for what the ACA's proponents say is their main goal: insurance against injury or serious illness. (Or whatever else I'm missing that's very important.) Instead, we have counseling wrapped into this, we have birth control, we have to cover copays, we have to cover basically all kinds of !@#$ around the peripheral.

The ACA's proponents keep telling us that the main goal here is to avoid a family suffering bankruptcy or not being able to avail themselves of treatments for injuries and serious medical conditions. Well, copays don't make a family go bankrupt, and neither does purchasing ####### condoms or birth control pills. There is an aura of deception here that is unmistakable - as evidenced by the fact that the Act's proponents don't really want to seem to own what they are doing.

Plenty of those "everything under the suns", though, are already covered by many -- if not most -- health insurance plans. I just checked - my large ESP would pay for counseling for a gambling addiction and the drug plan likewise looks like it would include various forms of contraception.

If you want to 'repeal and replace' with a pure public plan that outlines a much more limited set of coverage, I highly suspect most liberals would make that trade.

Once the plan was clearly going to be regulated usage of private carriers, then the foundation became a matter of finding a prevalent plan minimum. None of the things you mention - gambling addiction and contraception - are statutorily spelled out as required coverage; they came about via DOL surveys of standard plans.

The list of statutory minimum plan requirements - precisely as written in the law (Sec 1302(b)(1) is:

Medical science has determined gambling addiction to be an impulse control disorder marked by partially overlapping neural circuits (whatever that means, but I'm going to suggest that the doctors who study such things know more about it than you or I).

One of the frustrations of libertarians on this (or I guess I'll just speak for myself) is that we are told that it's not a wealth redistribution, and yet everything under the sun is wrapped into health care, including - as we've seen in this thread - gambling addiction and contraception.

Again, pregnancy is a serious medical condition. Contraception is a way of managing and, when desired, preventing a serious medical condition. It's obviously health care in the most basic way.

It's 2012. Can't we do away with elected representatives? Spend a few billion dollars, give everyone access to wi-fi, and just have everybody vote for every bill through online votes. We've evolved beyond the need for a representational democracy--we can vote on all things directly.

It's 2012. Can't we do away with elected representatives? Spend a few billion dollars, give everyone access to wi-fi, and just have everybody vote for every bill through online votes. We've evolved beyond the need for a representational democracy--we can vote on all things directly.

"Preventive Medicine." Is that another commonly used phrase that boggles your mind for some reason?

Condoms are quite cheap.

The existence of other, less effective but cheaper kinds of contraception is entirely beside the point. All contraception is a form of health care.

Say I have a laceration on my knee. Band-aids are quite cheap. However, in this case, it makes sense to go to a doctor and get stitches. Band-aids are health care, but they aren't as effective for the medical problem I have.

There are liberals who believe that you should work from a framework of effectively a priori rights, but disagree with the tightly limited libertarian theory of right. You can see the UN Declaration of Human Rights for a vision of liberal human rights which have been taken by many as effectively a priori. It is not only libertarians who believe in rights in this fashion, and this metaphysical rights discourse can support a wide range of theories of rights.

While I would obviously disagree with the particular rights that those liberals in question, I hold a great deal of respect for people, while all obviously imperfect as we all, are guided buy an operating, coherent thread of belief.

If you want to 'repeal and replace' with a pure public plan that outlines a much more limited set of coverage, I highly suspect most liberals would make that trade.

From a practical standpoint, I have little real complaint with a public option, so long as it's funded only by those that choose the option - where I differ greatly is with those that see the public option as the means to undermine private insurance, with the intent to use general tax revenues to subsidize what's offered in the public option. Libertarians, after all, can read liberal and progressive publications as well as the liberals and progressives can.

I'd certainly find it far more palatable if the ACA was actually directed at more of the justifications. No co-pays for preventative health care and various forced add-ons are a far cry from the "people are going bankrupt" and "free riders" and "employment-tethered!" complaints that are being given as justification for the law. An ACA designed as catastrophic coverage and open state exchanges, with an insurance mandate that demands people cover *easily communicable to third party* ailments and a public option designed for competition, not as a Trojan horse, may not be my ideal choice, but it's one I wouldn't really complain about at all, with so many serious attacks on free speech going on.

While I would obviously disagree with the particular rights that those liberals in question, I hold a great deal of respect for people, while all obviously imperfect as we all, are guided buy an operating, coherent thread of belief.

Unless you can't be bothered to listen to them to figure out what that coherent thread might be.

I'd certainly find it far more palatable if the ACA was actually directed at more of the justifications. No co-pays for preventative health care and various forced add-ons are a far cry from the "people are going bankrupt" and "free riders" and "employment-tethered!" complaints that are being given as justification for the law. An ACA designed as catastrophic coverage and open state exchanges, with an insurance mandate that demands people cover *easily communicable to third party* ailments and a public option designed for competition, not as a Trojan horse, may not be my ideal choice, but it's one I wouldn't really complain about at all, with so many serious attacks on free speech going on.

I understand that the plan isn't outlined the way you want but the major point of the plan was access to healthcare, not access to healthcare for serious illness or injury. What other people say or what you hear other people say is noise. It isn't why the ACA was implemented, it was implemented to give as many people as possible access to healthcare.

From a practical standpoint, I have little real complaint with a public option, so long as it's funded only by those that choose the option - where I differ greatly is with those that see the public option as the means to undermine private insurance, with the intent to use general tax revenues to subsidize what's offered in the public option. Libertarians, after all, can read liberal and progressive publications as well as the liberals and progressives can.

Well, I can tell you that when the PO went belly-up, I very much took up the argument with plenty of liberals that a public option was probably doomed to become an adverse selection pool. Ultimately, private insurance could have easily poached the healthy and young while a public plan almost certainly wouldn't have been able to do that (just from a purely practical perspective -- the sorts of enticements and penalties -- even with the statutory limits on discrimination and such, would have basically pushed the higher cost folks onto the public plan).

Japan has made such a schema more or less work -- but then, the Japanese government is the sole negotiator for reimbursement rates for BOTH public and private insurance. You can argue that happens by proxy in the US, too, since the Medicare fee schedules tend to act as a starting point for all insurance-provider payment negotiations, but Japan just lays down the law for all plans.

Ultimately, I don't think it would have so much been a matter of intending to undermine -- though, I absolutely admit and concur that plenty of liberals saw a "public option" as precisely that -- as long-term consequence of a broader private insurance schema.

Where I diverge from that liberal body of thought is that I thought the public option as outlined was doomed to fail and I likewise don't share in what was at least then, the common idea that private insurance alone was to blame for our broken health care system.

On the manner of efficiency, Medicare has proven time and again to measurably more "efficient" -- simply going by an MLR-like formulate -- than private insurers. Even AHIP doesn't dispute this.

What Medicare does suck at -- or rather, it's biggest shortcoming is the idea of oversight of providers. I'm not saying that the program is riddled with fraud by any stretch -- but with something so monstrously big, it's depressingly easy for an unscrupulous provider to work the system... I'm not even talking about billing for services not rendered -- but hospitals spend a ton of money doing financial analysis of profitable procedures and very much fashion their business to bilk such services. This includes public and "not-for-profit" hospitals -- there was a big case in Maryland about a renowned heart surgeon who was basically running a stent assembly line. No one doubts he implanted all the stents he billed, but his license is at risk because he billed more than 2 million dollars in a single day to Medicare, implanting something like 20some stents. Abbott labs also got in hot water over it because they lauded (and rewarded) him as a rainmaker.

ACA was phase one -- as the 90s debacle proved, if you take on the "big 3" (medicine, PhRMA/devices, and AHIP) all at once, you're gonna lose badly.

Politically, Obama took the smart course here and basically made a deal with PhRMA (which, by the way, has paid off -- all accounts are that PhRMA has delivered its promised prescription savings in exchange for reimportation of drugs not being included in reform); and didn't really go after the AMA or AHA. There were parts neither liked in the bill -- but by and large, medicine/doctors/hospitals got spared.

AHIP took the haircut this time around.

The next round of reform probably ought to focus on medicine itself. Hospitals and especially large provider groups badly need to be brought to heel. PhRMA can wait for now.

If the US were to follow the course set by many countries, oral contraceptives would be available OTC and some of the squabbles in this thread would have been avoided. But if you need a prescription for something, of course a healthcare plan must address it somehow, either by covering it or by leaving people uncovered (and as many have said, insurers like to cover prescriptions that prevent complications down the road).

But if you have oral contraceptives OTC then women might not be slut shamed regularly enough. (I realize this isn't the thing with our local libertarian chorus, but they align with the people who drive that sort of thing without a second thought.)

The bottom line really is that liberals want everything under the sun covered. This is standard issue wealth redistribution, dressed up as oh my god health care health care health care we can't have people dying in the streets we can't have people going bankrupt we have to shoot The Good Face before he leaves someone dying in the street even though nobody should die in the street as long as all of us caring liberals are around.

The bottom line for me is that contraception is health care. You and David have argued that it isn't, everyone else in this thread including Dan have argued that it is. Your argument that it wasn't was premised on the rejection of the entire concept of preventive care. So that's where we are. I'm guessing you've realized it was a dumb argument, but don't care to come up with a new one, so you're trying to shift the debate around. Have fun.

In the New Testament of the Bible, there's a passage where the Jews are instructed not to harvest to the edges of their fields. That was to be left for the poor and aliens. I don't know what their attitude on health care was. Jesus seemed to spend a lot of time practicing something similar to health care; I'm sure there were plenty of others wandering about trying to do the same. I don't know what sort of care was required, if any.
The New Testament? It's Leviticus 19:9-10. The real bible, not the unauthorized sequel.

You come upon a cabin in the woods. The cabin has obviously been occupied fairly recently but there is no one there at the time. It is well stocked with food for a couple of months, some bandages and medicine, and heat. There's also a lock on the door and a No Trespassing sign.

Under the circumstances, is it wrong for you to break in, use some of the food and medicine, and rest up for a day or two while the storm passes and you heal up? While normally this isn't appropriate, in times of survival the rules change. Life trumps liberty
So much for that whole "give me liberty or give me death" thing, I guess.
and property, and you may use the provisions. If you can compensate the owner later that would be great too, but you can use the provisions even if you're never able to pay him back.
And if the owner is there at the time, and you knock, is he obligated to give you food? No. And if you try to break in and take it, is he justified in shooting you? Yes.

It doesn't surprise me that it's from the OT too, I figured it was a Jewish thing, not a Jesus thing.

I'm also assuming the punishments for commands in Leviticus 19 are those in Leviticus 26, the general list of dire things that will happen.

For the curious, Leviticus 18 has all of the sexual prohibitons (punishments are in chapter 20, mostly death.) Male homosexuality is included, along with bestiality, adultery, and various incest scenarios. Lesbianism appears to be okay as it's unmentioned, though I don't believe it's okay to watch.

But if you have oral contraceptives OTC then women might not be slut shamed regularly enough. (I realize this isn't the thing with our local libertarian chorus, but they align with the people who drive that sort of thing without a second thought.)

I hope that snapper's okay, but when I read this I can't help but be grateful that his brand of social conservative hasn't participated in this thread. We've had enough trolls here already to fill up the Hall of the Mountain King.

The bottom line really is that liberals want everything under the sun covered.

And in your zeal to oppose any sort of government health care system, you're twisting yourself into knots trying to promote an absurdly limited notion of what "health care," for normal people, consists of.

Pregnancy is caused (in the situations we're speaking of - i.e., not rape) by a voluntary action. Generally when people think of preventive care, they're speaking of screening for early detection of disease such as cancer and what not. This is a deliberate distortion of that. True, cancer can be caused by voluntary actions such as smoking - but, then, I don't think preventive care should be covered either. What I would find "palatable," as long as we're doing this, is coverage for things like treatment for disease and the like, since that's what liberals pretended to be most concerned about. (And, no, it's not a given that screening and such costs less.)

So, contraception is health care, but it isn't preventive care? I'm having trouble following you.

Anyway, it makes no sense to say that if there are a set of actions you can take to avoid a medical condition, that other means of preventing that medical condition aren't preventive care.

An analogy for contraception as preventive health care, in this case, is the HPV vaccine. HPV is transmitted through sexual intercourse. One can prevent HPV by never having sex. That doesn't mean that the HPV vaccine isn't a kind of preventive care.

If there were a cancer vaccine that allowed you to smoke lots of cigarettes without getting cancer, it would be a form of preventive care, even though refraining from smoking would also prevent cancer.

And in your zeal to oppose any sort of government health care system, you're twisting yourself into knots trying to promote an absurdly limited notion of what "health care," for normal people, consists of.

I don't oppose any sort of government health care system, but I think Ray has a point here. The list of things that could be broadly construed as "health care", including preventive health care, is limitless. Broccoli, orange juice, sunscreen, ergonomic keyboards, bicycle helmets, mittens, orthopedic shoes, regular shoes, toothpaste, soap...

I think it's fair to distinguish between "health care" and "health care which the government should compel coverage of".

If you want to argue whether contraception is a form of preventive medical care that government shouldn't require insurance to cover, well, that's a values argument. I think you're wrong, and I think Dan's wrong, and I think I'm right, but it's a political argument.

Whether contraception is medical care, and whether it's preventive care, is a discussion that's really just about understanding what medical and preventive care are. I care about getting this one right.

I don't believe Congress has any more right to regulate financial agreements between two consenting parties than it does sexual ones.

So if landowner X contracts with Oil Company Y to drill an oil well in the middle of Manhattan/Houston/San Diego, the government has nothing to say about it?

So if landowner X on the banks of the Mississippi in Louisiana contracts with a construction co. to alter the flow of the river by riparian reconfiguration (never leaving his property or touching anyone else’s), that’s okay? The government has no say about it?

So, and this was actually in the news, if I contract with someone to provide me with the necessary materiel, I can build a nuclear device in my kitchen and the government has no say about that?

No they don't. All of those things lower the risk of medical conditions. People brush and floss and still get cavities. Sunscreen application limits the risk of skin cancer, but it does not prevent it. Pregnancy is directly prevented by the hormones in the pill which prevent ovulation.

The pill is similar to a vaccine. Unless you want to argue that vaccines are part of this big gray area of what is and is not preventive care, you've got to include the pill.

Is the polio vaccine a form of preventive health care? The HPV vaccine?

Can anyone direct me to a few articles discussing the question (which Ray hints at above) as to whether funding preventive (preventative?) care saves money in the long-run, rather than just letting people get the diseases and only present for treatment once they have symptoms?

I understand that the issue is complex and is probably not capable of being reduced to a single conclusion (i.e., maybe mammograms are cheaper than letting breast cancer happen w/o early detection, while PSA screenings for all men actually costs more than just letting prostate cancer happen w/o early detection).

Assuming it is a close call as between prevention/early detection and treatment, I'm not sure the cost question matters - as in, I'd probably take the position that whether it costs more or not, we ought to be pursuing the option that ensures the highest survivability for all,* but I'm nonetheless interested.**

*As long as I don't have to drive an inflatable 2 mph car to my appointments. /snicker

**No, I don't really want to have the "line-drawing" debate; I just want to learn about the cost question.

No they don't. All of those things lower the risk of medical conditions. People brush and floss and still get cavities. Sunscreen application limits the risk of skin cancer, but it does not prevent it. Pregnancy is directly prevented by the hormones in the pill which prevent ovulation.

The pill lowers the risk of pregnancy. It is cetainly not 100.000% effective.

No they don't. All of those things lower the risk of medical conditions. People brush and floss and still get cavities. Sunscreen application limits the risk of skin cancer, but it does not prevent it. Pregnancy is directly prevented by the hormones in the pill which prevent ovulation.

The pill is similar to a vaccine. Unless you want to argue that vaccines are part of this big gray area of what is and is not preventive care, you've got to include the pill.

Is the polio vaccine a form of preventive health care? The HPV vaccine?

I'd distinguish it on the basis that there are no other courses of action, besides the vaccine, that will guarantee not contracting polio. The birth control pill is just one way to prevent pregnancy.

I'd distinguish it on the basis that there are no other courses of action, besides the vaccine, that will guarantee not contracting polio.

Technically, a vaccine doesn't guarantee that you won't catch the disease, it simply reduces it to a level so low that we don't see outbreaks from environmental sources. The issue with comparing a vaccine to the pill is that a lot of people don't follow the proper procedure for the pill (and even then the prevention rate is extremely high) and once you get the vaccine you really don't have to do much after that.

Of course he is. We all are, if the crime is heinous enough and the laws of the land immoral enough. I don't, for instance, see anything wrong with the Nuremberg Trials.

You didn't answer the questions. What crimes would the slave owners be charged with, compared, if you like, with those those at Nuremberg. Were the defendants tried for just being Nazis, for instance? Or were they charged with having committed murders and atrocities and aiding and abetting in the commission of murders and atrocities--which were specific and enumerated.

If health insurance should cover pregnancy then health care should cover the prevention of pregnancy.

I don't even have a problem with covering contraception. Of all the things government should cover for people who are unable to take care of themselves, contraception should be near the top of the list. My objection is to MCoA's reasoning: "It's health care. End of discussion."

If health insurance should cover pregnancy then health care should cover the prevention of pregnancy. This is a whole lotta load of repressed sexual frustration bubbling to the surface.

To build on this into a better point, if health insurance is going to cover the cost of a pregnancy, it would be very smart to cover the cost on contraception. Between prenatal care and the actual birth, you're likely to spend more on one pregnancy than a lifetime of contraceptives.

What crimes would the slave owners be charged with, compared, if you like, with those those at Nuremberg

1) The keeping of people as property, and the commercial traffic in humans, which is a crime against humanity.
2) All of the specific criminal acts - murder, rape, abuse - which are endemic to slave societies.